Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology > Responses to people in need > Flashcards

Responses to people in need Flashcards

(74 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What is the background to Piliavin

A

Kitty Genovese
stabbed several times walking home from work
38 people saw or heard some part of the attack and didn’t help

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is bystander apathy?

A

Individuals likelihood of helping decreases when passive bystanders are present

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is diffusion of responsibility?

A

when in a group responsibility is shared, each person feels less responsible so no one helps

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the cost benefit model?

A

weighing up the rewards and costs of helping

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What was Latane and Darley (1968) experiment 1?

A

arranged for smoke to come under the door in a waiting room
75% of participants waiting alone reported it
10% of participants waiting with confederated reported it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What was Latane and Darley (1968) experiment 2?

A

students recruited to take part in a conversation via intercom
each student spoke for two minutes then commented on other students
only one real person taking part other students were pre recorded
one voice had a seizure and began choking
85% on own reported
30% with others reported

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

why did Piliavin conduct this research?

A
  • field experiment, real world
  • wanted to investigate behaviours of bystanders following kittys murder and why 0/37 helped
  • lab experiment consists of candid camera/ trigger happy style scenarios
    -does altruism exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was Piliavins first aim?

A

they wanted to study bystanders behaviour outside of the lab environment where participants have a clear view of the victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what were the four variable effecting bystander behaviour in piliavins study?

A

wanted to see if bystander behaviour was affected by four variables:
-victims responsibility
- victims race
- the effect of modelling helping behaviour
- size of the group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What was the design for Piliavins experiment?

A

field experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the field situation for Piliavins experiment?

A

A and D trains of the 8th avenue New York Subway between 59th street and 125 street
the journey lasted about 7.5 minutes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What were the four IV (p)

A
  • type of victim (drunk or cane)
  • race of victim (black or white)
  • effect of model (after 70 or 150s in critical/adjacent area) or not
  • size of witnessing group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What were the DV in Piliavins study?

A

Recorded by 2 females in adjacent carriage
- frequency of help
- speed of help
- race of helper
- sex of helper
- movement from critical area
- verbal comments by bystanders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What were the participants in Piliavins study?

A

4450 men and women
used New York Subway on weekdays between 11am-3pm
between april 15th and June 26th 1968
45% black
55% white

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

who were victims in Piliavins study?

A

3 white
1 black
all male
26-35 years
dressed alike
smelled of liquor/carried bottle
sober and carried black cane

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

characteristicsof the models in Piliavins study

A

all white
24-29 years
4 model conditions:
-critical area (early)
-critical area (late)
-adjacent area (early)
-adjacent area (late)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What did the observers measure? (p)

A

First: race, sex, location of every rider (seated or standed) in critical area and every helper and total number who came to victims assistance
second: race, sex, location of every rider (seated or standed) in adjacent area and latency of first helper after the victim had fallen and after the model arrived and total number who came to victims assistance
both recorded comments made by passengers and attempted to elicit comments from riders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what did the team do after the train stopped?

A

waited separately, changed platforms and repeated in opposite direction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

How many trials were run on a given day? (p)

A

6-8

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Why were there more cane than drunk trials?

A

victim didn’t like playing drunk
student strikes prevented trials to correct it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

results for Ill v drunk conditions?

A

cane victim received spontaneous help 95% (62/65)
drunk 50% (19/38)
overall
100% cane
81% drunk
help offered more quickly to cane (median 5s compared to 109)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

how did the race of victim effect help in piliavins study?

A

cane= black and white equally likely to be helped
drunk= black less likely to receive help
tendency for same race helping

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

In Piliavins study what effect did the latency of modelling have on helping behaviour?

A

70s more likely to help
150 seconds less likely to help

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

how did the Number of bystanders effect helping behaviour in Piliavins study?

A

no evidence of diffusion of responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What percent of first helpers were male?
90%
26
How many passengers moved away from critical area?
21/103
27
What were Piliavins conclusions?
- i’ll more likely to get help than drunk - men more likely to help male victim than women in mixed groups - mixed race groups, more likely for same race helping - no strong relationship between number of bystanders and speed of helping - when escape isn’t possible helpmore likely - cost reward analysis conducted
28
How can we explain the findings of Piliavins study in terms of arousal?
- arousal levels interpreted as sympathy, fear and disgust - arousal rises closer to situation/ longer the situation - greater arousal when bystanders can empathise
29
What four ways was arousal reduced by?
help directly leave to find help leave the area dismiss victim as unworthy of help
30
What are the practical applications for Piliavins study?
understanding why you might receive help - don’t appear drunk - if male ask males for help - go to a place people can’t just leave - get help immediately
31
Is reliability a strength or weakness (why)? (p)
strength observer has set categories same scenario can easily be repeated
32
pilliavin Is generalisability a strength or weakness? (why)
strength large sample size both genders mix of race (only black and white) (only New York)
33
How useful is Piliavins study?
useful Tells us i’ll victims receive more help than drunk, influence society to change its actions
34
Is ethics a strength or weakness? (why) (p)
weakness deceit no right to withdraw no informed consent can cause harm/ discomfort
35
What is the background for Levine et al (2001)?
previous research unrepresentative (crocs cultural) few studies outside USA wanted to understand impact of cultural and economic differences
36
What was the primary aim for Levine research?
take the largest city of every country and compare the impact of economic and cultural differences on helping behaviour
37
what is the predicted correlation between economic status and helping in Levines study?
weak positive correlation between wealth and cities helpfulness more well off= more selfish as this is how they generate the wealth
38
What are the cultural differences in Levines study?
collectivist society- helping eachother for the benefit of everyone individualistic society- helping yourself simpatia- spanish culture- feeling of community
39
what are the three aims?levine
-tendency to help people dependent on characteristics of city or universal -test wether helping behaviour varies between cultures -particular characteristics of a city (size) associated with tendency of helping
40
What was the experimental design for Levine?
cross cultural quasi experiment used independent measures design
41
What was the field situation in Levines study?
23 large cities: Rio De Janeiro Madrid Budapest Rome New York Kuala Lumpur
42
What were the three non emergency situations?
Dropped pen Hurt/ injured leg Blind person trying to cross the road
43
What were the 4 measures correlated with?levine
population size economic wellbeing cultural values (individualistic, collectivist, simpatia) pace of life
44
Who were the participants in Levines study?
the 23 large cities
45
Where were the three measures administered?levine
two or more locations (not generalisable) main downtown areas main business hours clear days
46
For dropped pen and hurt leg which individuals were excluded?
Children (17-) physically disabled very old carrying packages
47
How were participants selected?
approaching the second potential person to cross a predetermined line
48
Who collected the data for Levines study?
interested or responsible students who were travelling or returning home cross cultural psychologists and their students
49
what were the characteristics of the experimenters?
college age dressed neatly and casually all men (control gender effects/ avoid problems)
50
How did Levine ensure standardisation through his experimenters?
detailed instruction sheet on site field training learning procedure for P selection and scoring Ps experimenters practiced together
51
Why did Levine ensure standardisation?
minimise experimenter effects and to standardise scoring
52
How was the dropped pen situation measured?
walked towards pedestrian in opposite direction accidentally dropped pen behind him in view of pedestrian continued walking past helped if they called back picked up the pen and brought it to the experimenter
53
How was the hurt leg situation measured?
walking with heavy limp and obvious leg brace dropped magazines and struggled to pick them up offering to help and beginning to help without offering
54
How was the blind situation measured?
experimenter dressed in dark glasses, carried white cane stepped up to corner before light turned green- held out cane and waited until someone offered help helping = minimum telling experimenter the light is green
55
What % of people helped in Rio De Janeiro?
93%
56
What % of people helped in Kuala Lumpur?
40%
57
Were the three measures results consistent?
Yes counties who helped in one helped in others
58
Relationships between helping and population variables?levine
-economic prosperity (-0.43) -helping not related to population size of collectivism -walking speed weakly correlated (0.26) - Simpatia countries more helpful (82.87%) compared to (65.87%)
59
What are the conclusions of Levines study?
- large cross cultural variations in helping rates - helping inversely related to a country’s economic productivity -Simpatia countries more helpful - faster cities less helpful -collectivism/individualism not related to helping behaviours
60
What are the explanations for helping behaviours? (L)
.reciprocal altruism .social exchange theory- cost benefit analysis want to maximise benefits .responsibility/ prosocial value orientation- feel responsible or have the ability to help .urban overload hypothesis- people in urban ares less helpful as they experience sensory overload .kin selection-helping related to increase the chance of gene transmission
61
why is reliability a strength in Levines study?
can be repeated so other psychologists can check validity of his findings
62
why is generalisability a strength in Levines study?
1198 large sample, 23 countries representative of wider society (andocentric victims, ages not representative)
63
Why is ecological validity a strength in Levines study?
In natural environment so there are no demand characteristics or social desirability
64
why is ethics a weakness in Levines study?
no informed consent, deceit, no debrief goes against morals and vulnerable participants
65
Why is usefulness a strength in Levines study?
factors that influence help in non emergency situations good to know when travelling
66
Why is data a strength in Levines study?
quantitative can draw patterns and trends to help us understand factors influencing helping behaviour (not qualitative so no meanings)
67
how are piliavin and levines studies alike?
both field studies responses to people in need high ecological validity reliable andocentric models ethical weakness both covert peoples more likely to help when not responsible
68
What are the differences in the studies (Piliavin)
emergency situations qualitative data focused on diffusion of responsibility two measure- i’ll drunk
69
difference between the studies (Levine)
non emergency situations more generalisable 23 cities focused on economic and cultural 3 measures- hurt leg, blind, dropped pen
70
What were the reasons Levine identified for people helping?
economy survival reciprocal altruism genetics
71
How was population size measured in levines study?
UN demographic yearbook
72
How was economic prosperity measured in Levines study?
purchasing power prosperity statistics published by world bank
73
How were cultural values measured in Levines study?
rated country from 1(very collectivist) to 10 (very individualistic)
74
How was pace of life measured in Levines study?
average walking speed between 2 markers 60 ft

Psychology (21 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions